Defendant,
Terence C. Williams, appeals the trial court's denial of
his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to one count of
armed robbery and one count of obscenity. Mr. Williams
specifically contends that it was an abuse of the trial
court's discretion to deny his request made prior to
sentencing in light of his assertion that he did not fully
understand the sentence that was agreed to as a part of the
plea agreement. For the reasons that follow, finding no abuse
of discretion, we affirm the trial court's ruling and,
accordingly, affirm Mr. Williams' convictions and
sentences.

FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On June
25, 2015, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill
of information charging Mr. Williams with one count of armed
robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64 (count one), and one
count of obscenity, a violation of La. R.S. 14:106 (count
two). At his arraignment on July 6, 2015, Mr. Williams
entered pleas of not guilty to both counts.[1]

On
December 11, 2015, defense counsel filed a motion for a
competency examination on the ground that Mr. Williams had
previously been diagnosed and treated for mental illness.
Thereafter, Mr. Williams was examined by experts, Dr. Rafael
Salcedo, a forensic psychologist, and Dr. Richard Richoux, a
forensic psychiatrist, for purposes of determining whether
Mr. Williams suffered from any mental disorder affecting his
competency to proceed to trial and to assist counsel in the
preparation of his defense. A competency hearing was held on
March 9, 2016. According to the experts' report entered
into evidence at the hearing, Drs. Salcedo and Richoux
determined that their examination failed to reveal evidence
that Mr. Williams was manifesting any signs or symptoms of a
psychiatric disorder.[2]Additionally, despite "significant
substance abuse problems involving daily use of both
marijuana and cocaine when … not in institutional
confinement," the experts opined that Mr. Williams fully
understood the nature of the proceedings and the charges
against him, and was capable of assisting his attorney in
preparing his defense. Relying on the experts' findings
outlined in their report, which included their assessment of
Mr. Williams' "serious drug addiction," the
trial court found Mr. Williams competent to proceed to trial.

Also on
March 9, 2015, immediately following the competency hearing,
defense counsel informed the court that she had shown to Mr.
Williams all of the discovery, including various
videos/audios, which the State intended to use against him at
trial to support a conviction, and that Mr. Williams had been
made "completely aware of all of the State's
evidence against him." Defense counsel further advised
that, based on his two prior felony convictions, Mr. Williams
had been determined to be a multiple felony offender and
that, as such, he had been advised that his status as a
"triple bill" would dramatically increase in his
sentencing range and exposure at trial (i.e., 66 to
198 years) if convicted on the charge of armed robbery (or
any felony). Additionally, defense counsel stated Mr.
Williams had been informed of the State's plea
offer-i.e., 35 years' imprisonment, with no
multiple bill[3]-but that, despite her professional
recommendation that accepting the plea was in his best
interest and that the "35 years [was] a today
offer," Mr. Williams had chosen to refuse the offer in
favor of proceeding to trial.

Because
of Mr. Williams' refusal to accept the plea offer in
favor of trial, defense counsel requested that the trial
court conduct a Frye hearing.[4] During the
Frye hearing, the trial judge explained to Mr.
Williams that, if convicted of armed robbery, he would be a
triple felony offender subject to a mandatory minimum
sentence of 66 years up to 198 years at hard labor without
benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. The
trial judge further explained to Mr. Williams-and Mr.
Williams stated that he understood-that if he agreed to plead
guilty, the State would agree not to file a multiple offender
bill against him and that, "based upon [his]
attorney's efforts on [his] behalf," the court would
"reluctantly" agree to sentence him to only 35
years, which was a "today only option," but that if
he refused to plead guilty, "all bets were off" in
terms of what sentence the court might give, which the trial
court "promise[d]" would not "be only 35 years
after today." When asked by the court if he still wished
to proceed to trial, Mr. Williams responded that he would
"take 35."

Mr.
Williams then withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and
entered pleas of guilty as charged on both counts for an
agreed upon sentence of 35 years imprisonment in the
Department of Corrections without benefit of probation,
parole or suspension of sentence as to count one, and three
years' imprisonment in the Department of Corrections as
to count two, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Thereafter, the trial court conducted a lenghthy plea
colloquy with Mr. Williams, wherein he of his Boykin
rights, [5] including his right to a jury trial or by
judge alone, his right to the presumption of innocence, his
right to confront his accusers and to call witnesses or
present favorable evidence, his privilege against
self-incrimination, and the right to appeal his conviction.

The
trial court also reviewed with Mr. Williams the possible
sentencing ranges for an armed robbery conviction and an
obscenity conviction. The trial court further confirmed with
Mr. Williams that he understood that if the court were to
accept his guilty pleas, he would be sentenced to 35 years at
hard labor in the Department of Corrections without benefits
on the armed robbery charge, and to three years at hard labor
on the obscenity charge, with the sentences ordered to be run
concurrently, and with credit for time served on both
charges.

During
the plea colloquy, when the trial court specifically inquired
as to whether Mr. Williams was suffering from any type of
physical or mental impairment that would affect his ability
to enter into the plea agreement, Mr. Williams responded in
the negative. Mr. Williams confirmed that he could read,
write and understand the English language. In response to
further inquiry by the trial court, Mr. Williams indicated
that he was satisfied with his counsel's legal
representation and that he had not been forced, threatened,
or coerced in any way to accept the plea deal. The trial
court established that Mr. Williams understood the timeline
for appealing his sentence and/or applying for
post-conviction relief, and that he understood his guilty
plea could be used to enhance the penalty for any future
felony conviction. The trial court confirmed with Mr.
Williams that his attorney had reviewed the "waiver of
constitutional rights plea of guilty form" with him,
that he had initialed each of the provisions on the form, and
that it was his signature on the form acknowledging that his
rights had been explained to him and that he wished to waive
those rights.

Throughout
the plea colloquy, Mr. Williams indicated that he understood
his rights, that he wished to waive his rights, and that he
understood the consequences of his guilty plea, including the
sentences that would be imposed in accordance with the plea
agreement. Following this detailed exchange with Mr. Williams
in open court, the trial court accepted Mr. Williams'
guilty pleas as having been knowingly, intelligently, freely
and voluntarily made.

On
April 14, 2016, Mr. Williams appeared for sentencing, at
which time he made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty
pleas on the grounds that he was under duress at the time he
accepted the plea offer, and that he "did not truly
comprehend and understand" the sentence that was agreed
to as a part of the plea. When questioned by the trial court
regarding what specific aspect of his plea was causing him
confusion, Mr. Williams replied that he wanted to "take
[his] plea back" because, "at the time [he]
couldn't really read" the "paper that [he] was
signing for [his] sentence," and "didn't really
understand what [he] was signing." Asserting no specific
basis for his inability to read or comprehend, and despite
the affirmative answers he provided in response to the trial
court's prior questioning during the Boykin
colloquy, Mr. Williams stated that he did not understand any
aspect of the plea agreement, in particular, the sentence
that he would receive as a result of the plea.

The
following discussion then took place between the trial judge
and Mr. Williams:

THE COURT:

What is your understanding what will happen if the Court
allows you to withdraw your guilty plea?

THE DEFENDANT:

By losing trial, I would get the max that I supposed to have,
the sentence I supposed to have and you would take back what
you offered me the first time.

THE COURT:

You know that you are a multiple offender, correct, you have
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.